Skip to main content

About your Search

English 72
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 72 (some duplicates have been removed)
's going to have an impact on law enforcement. we're going to be looking at f.b.i. agents, d.e.a. agents, a.t.f. agents who are going to be furloughed and federal prosecutors who are not going to be working with you all on task forces and bringing cases. there are a whole variety of things that are going to happen as a result of sequestration. and that's why i called on in my prepared remarks for congress to resolve this as quickly as possible. >> america's day begins in guam and our questions will attendant with attorney general capadas. >> and we have been talking about your visit to the war museum there and still remember how long you stayed there and appreciated your visit. and spending some money, i think. >> not to have a commercial. but if you are in guam or in the south pacific, it is something to see this world war ii museum. it is something that is -- it's technologically done but extremely moving and informative place. it's really something to see. >> and kind after follow-on to maine's questions, the volcker grants, and i think how the department of justice allocates these cuts,
concerned with privacy have complained for a while that the law has not kept pace with technology and the government can obtain, store, and access increasing amounts of data about our daily lives. privacy is one of the issues that is difficult to get people to care about. i was reading an article that compares the privacy damage to environment in the sense that it happens little by little and each erosion does not seem to matter that much. at the end of the day, it may add up to a loss of privacy that is unacceptable in our democracy. the question is, are we there yet? it seems like we have reached an inflection point about privacy. more people are concerned about the issue. we could see it covered in the press more. a computing factor was the petraeus affair about for which this event is case. it seems like in the case, the fbi did have warrant. the investigation made people realize that e-mails were not that private. privacy advocates took advantage of that moment to put forth the concerns they had talked about for years. two other things that happened over the last year, which
, to require those that traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms, and we'll give law enforcement more effective tools. the substitute also incorporates a number of changes, the result of suggestions from senator grassley and his staff. we have been working on this since january. tried to be responsive to the ranking member's concerns and suggestions, and have reached across the aisle to other senators. as a a.t.f. whistleblower, senator grassley has been the lead senator in whistleblower legislation, was a a.t.f. whistleblower, who testified last congress that the existing laws are toothless and they can help law enforcement -- can't help law enforcement, and that's why law enforcement consistently has called for firearms trafficking statute that can be effective and go after straw purchasers. we need now is to create better law enforcement tools. and i think this will -- the senators can join together on this will close a very dangerous loophole in the law that mexican drug cartels and gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long. stop illegal trafficking th
decisions forced the rigid social stability. the purpose of all this work is to preserve law and order and promote social harmony and stability. >> food is a prominent concern. we should reform and improve the mechanism for overseeing and supervising food and drug safety. we should require enterprises to have strict oversight and supervision. from production to consumption and establish a scientific and effective food and drug safety system. to better ensure for safety. we should strengthen the public safety system and improve workplace conditions to decrease accidents. we should tighten regulation of the market and strength in construction of government- subsidized housing. 22 firmly -- we need to invest in housing demand and improve the accountability system for federalizing housing prices and regulating the market. we should sustain steady and sounded development. we should continue to manage government subsidized housing so they are satisfied with housing. this year, we should complete the government subsidized housing units and construction of another 6.3 million units and renovat
of criminal justice, law enforcement and national security challenges, alongside my colleagues and counter parts in the obama administration including vice president biden, attorney general tony west all of whom you're hearing from this week. we've established a great deal working together with you across state boundaries and i think importantly across party lines. the justice department has benefited and more importantly the american people have benefited from your tireless work, your expert guidance and your steadfast commitment to doing what's best for those that we have privileged to serve. and i really think the collaboration speak for themselves by helping to strengthen our state and federal criminal justice systems and advancing critical public safety initiatives and consumer products we have improved countless lives. you have made victims whole again and you brought assistance and healing to troubled areas. in close partnership with the president's financial fraud enforcement task force, you've helped to ensure that our approach in identifying and combating fraud targeting consumer
on the floor. for decades, u.s. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. this is that sort of open spaces doctrine. i'm not saying it makes it right but the government has been doing it for decades. some of the courts have apparently ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a back yard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws. you know, i don't think i agree with that. if you're swimming in your pool in your back yard, if you're in your hot tub in your back yard, just because we have the technology to be able to see you in your hot tub, does that really mean they have a right to look at what you are doing in your back yard, so i don't really accept that. i think it has been abused and something that really we should be fighting against the surveillance state. advocates say predators are simply more effective than other planes. flying out of earshot and out of sight, a predator bee can watch a target for 20 hours nonstop, far longer than any police helicopter or manned aircraft. i would say the
in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms, and we'll give law enforcement more effective tools. the substitute also incorporates a number of changes, the result of suggestions from senator grassley and his staff. we have been working on this since january. tried to be responsive to the ranking member's concerns and suggestions, and have reached across the aisle to other senators. as an a.t.f. whistleblower, senator grassley has been the lead senator in whistleblower legislation, was an a.t.f. whistleblower, who testified last congress that the existing laws are toothless and they can't help law enforcement, and that's why law enforcement consistently has called for firearms trafficking statute that can be effective and go after straw purchasers. we need now is to create better law enforcement tools. and i think this will -- the senators can join together on this will close a very dangerous loophole in the law that mexican drug cartels and gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long. stop illegal trafficking. the firearms act is important. this week the "usa today" ran
at the end of the last congress. how to make a law. just read the look. and i recognize that you would hardly recognize that civics lesson if you see what's happening on the floor here today and over the last period of time. but i have enormous, enormous respect for the chairman of the appropriations committee. we sat on that committee together for a number of years. i appreciate that he wanted to bring a bill to the floor that honors the budget control act. i disagree with the tactic of putting a reinforcement of the sequester into the law. it exists. we have to do the sequester unless we can head it off. unless the safety of our troops and their training, our national security, the education of our children, the safety of our neighbors, unless that takes precedence over protecting tax breaks for corporate jets, businesses that send jobs overseas, the list goes on and i mentioned it now more than one time. so i urge my colleagues to think carefully about this vote. this isn't a vote to shut down government or not. that vote will come another time. the senate isn't going to accept this bill.
process of law. as -- as were you, senator paul, recently when the obama administration leaked what was characterized as a department of justice white paper outlining the circumstances, outlining the legal criteria that this administration would use in deciding when and whether and under what circumstances to snuff out human life, the human life of an american citizen, no less. using a drone. now, the memorandum started out with certain somewhat predictable or familiar concep concepts. the memorandum started out by explaining an imminent standard, explaining that that certainly codn't happen absent an imminent threat to american national security. an imminent threato american life, for example. when we think of imminence, we think of something that is emergent. we think of an emergency, something going on at the moment which -- which unless interrupted, presents som kind of a dangerous threat. significantly, however, this is not how the department of justice white paper actually read. although it used the word "imminence," it defined imminence as something far different th we normal
of lawfulness of the illegal operation directed against a u.s. citizen, a senior operational leader of al qaeda. or an associated force. this is committee confidential but it is not classified. the fact of the matter is it is a 16 page, very hostile and -- very thoughtful and very impressive opinion, and yet, it cannot go into the public domain. i cannot ask you about some of the factors of this opinion even here and i think that's a mistake. i think the world we are now living in is so different and precise that the legal underpinnings for action really are important. secondly, it is one thing for a president to ask for a legal opinion prior to something that is ongoing. maybe even on going. it seems to me that after words, -- after words, -- afterwards, we should have the opportunity to assess the legality of that and if necessary, be able to clarify law, change a law, do whatever a constitutional legislative body does. i would just ask you to take a look at this. we have now -- i just got a note. it has been release now because it was leaked first. so -- [chuckles] >> that is one way of get
al qaeda leaders is lawful under certain circumstances. let me start with u.s. law. the president's legal authority derives from the authorization to use military force after september 18, 2001. congress should update this 12 year-old law. military and intelligence personnel defending against the terrorist threats to reface one decade after 9/11. including u.s. citizens. of course in addition to the statutory authority granted by congress, the president has broader authority to take necessary actions to defend the united states against terrorist threats. the targeted killing of american citizens, certain constitutional rights under the fourth and fifth amendments, even when they are up said the united states. the extent of those rights is not clear. what amount of process is due to an american outside the united states before being targeted by his government? i agree with the principal conclusions of the white paper that reportedly summarize the law as applicable to killing an american citizen who is a senior operation al qaeda leader. i agree that a senior al qaeda leader outside
's right to an equal education, or every brother who challenges the law that keeps his sister from owning property, or opening a business, or every husband, who not only promises that the cycle of domestic violence can stop with him, but who proves it. i see that courage. i see that hope in every woman on this stage, and you will learn that in a moment. in a testimony of the four honorees who cannot be here today because of the repression and the intimidation that still festers around the world. i see how much work we still have to do and so do you. one of the awardees is in hiding, another is in prison. 5 we present a fourth award for a brave woman whose life was brazenly stolen by brutal violence. their cause is our cause. women's issues, as we know, are more than just women's issues. they are family issues. they are economic issues. they are security issues. they are justice issues. they matter to all of us men, as well as women, boys as well as girls, those who live in free countries, as well as those who don't. that is why, including with the work of secretary clinton, and ambassador
's a comment on twitter. when boeing and others by law tried to notify employees of potential layoffs size year, obama astin not to do it. -- obama asked them not to do it. this notion of the warren act, can you talk about that? guest: the furloughs and that the federal government will not begin until the end of this month. you have to send a letter and the president signs it -- signed it last week saying that furloughs are coming. you've got to give advance notice. and in terms of contractors, you got to give advance notice as well, at least as i am under cla. the speaker pro tempore: of rule 0. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to the bill, h.r. 307. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 307. an act to re-authorize certain programs under the public health service act and the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to public health security and all has -- all-h
, protect lives and supporting international law. with you of we must assist the genuine moderate and democratic forces in syria who are in dire need of help and who feel by abandoned by the international community. the longer this conflict guess on. the more human sufferingn persecution of minorities, radicalization and sectarianl radicalization and sectarianl despite the three compelling arguments, there will be those who say that britain should have nothing to do with jair.shu but we cannot look the other way while international law and human rights are out. we cannot step back from a crisis that could destabilizeed the heart of the mild east and the height of irresponsibility the height of irresponsibility our own security so i want to ex lane to the house today the next step in increasing ourport to the syrian people and i emphasized that there may have to be further steps. we have contributed nearly 140 million pounds in humanitarian aid so far. this is from food, clean drinking water, blankets, shelter for many tens ofer thousands of people.ns with the supporting of theor n
. the rule of law, in other word,ct must operate in order to god protect the god-given interest to make sure they are not arbitrary deprived of any citizen.ere a we with talking wheel the sanctity of human life. whe when the interest at stake is not just liberty or property but life itself, we have to protect it. we have to take steps to protect that. and so i think it is important that we carefully scrutinize and evaluate any government program that has the potential to deprive any american citizen of his or her life without due process of law. so i was concerned, as were you, senator paul, recently when the obama administrationas leaked what was characterized as a department of justice white paper. outlining the circumstances outlining the legal criteria that this administration wouldn use in deciding when and whether and under what circumstances to snuff out human life. the the human life of an american citizen, no less, using a drone. m now the memorandum started out with certain somewhat predictable or familiarepts concepts.rted the memorandum started out byning explaining an imminent s
blowers that there were gaps in federal laws concerning straw purchasers which should be addressed, and this is our opportunity to do it. mr. chairman, you have worked with me on your bill making many changes at my request. they have made the bill better and reduced the negative side effects of previous versions. i trust you think so as well because you have included the changes in the new bill. the new bill in your substitute amendment also included a revised bill by senators gillibrand and kirk on the subject of gun trafficking. those revisions also reflect changes that i asked senator gillibrand to make, and i think it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. i think they demonstrate good faith of the chairman and senator gillibrand. for instance, senator gillibrand's bill originally would have made it a federal crime to transfer two or more guns if that person knew that the result would be a violation of state or local law. that would have given states and localities a one-way incentive to address new gun c
and furious, i was told by whistle blowers that there were gaps in federal laws concerning straw purchasers which should be addressed, and this is our opportunity to do it. mr. chairman, you have worked with me on your bill making many changes at my request. they have made the bill better and reduced the negative side effects of previous versions. i trust you think so as well because you have included the changes in the new bill. the new bill in your substitute amendment also included a revised bill by senators gillibrand and kirk on the subject of gun trafficking. those revisions also reflect changes that i asked senator gillibrand to make, and i think it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. i think they demonstrate good faith of the chairman and senator gillibrand. for instance, senator gillibrand's bill originally would have made it a federal crime to transfer two or more guns if that person knew that the result would be a violation of state or local law. that would have given states and localities a one-way ince
of the children and education. we've made sure that our law enforcement is taken care of, but we've also made those difficult choices early on that washington could really learn from in budgeting. i congratulate congressman messer for bringing this particular bill. it's a good government bill. i know the other side of the aisle is talking about the sequester, and i find it ironic that "the washington times" today has a headline that says, 400 more jobs were created in spite of the sequester. so i don't believe that the sky is falling here. this legislation requires the president to do some simple math and include with his budget, should he choose to submit one, an estimate of the cost of the deficit per taxpayer. taxpayers just simply deserve to know how much they owe for washington's out-of-control spending. after all, every dime that the federal government borrows is saddled on this generation and the next generation and generations to follow. right now the cost of washington's $16 trillion of national debt totals more than $147,000 per taxpayer. in fact, approximately every minute, mr. spe
jurisdiction to get preapproval be from the federal government to get changing for the federal laws before those laws could be put into effect. host: you said it with a brooder law and that section five is a brooder part of it. guest: everyone sees it a critical part of the law. it puts the burden of proof on the state pfs before 1965, the courts or congress striked down oppression laws like in alabama, and al would ignore those rulings or implement a new measure. so this was a deter represent mechanism and there is nothing like it that is aiken to section 5. host: how crucial to do you see it as the major framework? guest: it was in 1965. it was needed because of the discrimination in the south. times have changed greatly. today it is no longer needed. if discrimination occurs, it can be remedied through section 2. that is a nationwide permanent pro vision that bans discrimination in the voting context. section 5 was put in place because local and state governments were trying to evade court decrees because it is no longer needed because there are there hasn't been any evasion in decades.
and senate, because what is critical here, since sequester is the law of the land, all of these bills have the level they are at in the continuing resolution that will be subject to sequester. i will not repeat again devastate education, health care, air traffic control, the food and safety inspectors, etc.. that is why i think there has to be an adjustment. >> perhaps we should have put you in the joint selection committee. i am pleased that you can come together and find that the agreement. i have never gone to vote on a labor of hhs bill. i would have said the process was so problematic that agreement was near impossible and i might serve another two years and not see that process, but to hear even with these challenging funding levels set by sequestration that in your experience you are able to look forward and say we really are cord to be able to come to an agreement. i can tell you that my summer will be a better summer if it is filled with appropriation bills that have been reported out of the appropriations committee. >> i want to clarify, i did not think chairman rogers or myself
as cia director. federal law-enforcement officials revealed yesterday they took into custody al qaeda operatives and osama bin laden's son-in-law suleyman obligates. and the white house has undertaken a new charm offensive aimed at winning over rank-and- file congressional republicans for a potential grand economic bargain. that's where we begin with you this morning. your thoughts on the new effort of engagement by president obama and hear how optimistic you are that a deficit deal can be reached. give us a call -- 202-585-3883, if you are outside the united states. you can catch up with us on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us. a very good friday morning to you. i want to take you to some of the headlines about what is being called a charm offensive by president obama. this from the wall street journal this morning -- and from the washington post -- and from the new york times -- there you have a picture from wednesday night at the jefferson hotel in washington, d.c., where senators including tom coburn and saxby chambliss and joined the president for dinner that the president paid for
of the senate law enforcement caucus today to hear testimony from kentucky and delaware about the justice reinvestment initiative. we flew some people in. unfortunately the inclim ate weather canceled it. it's a place where bipartisan bills at the state level have led with federal partnership to the critical catalytic investments in improving criminal justice systems. the bulletproof partnership is something -- i had a police officer from dover, delaware, a couple months ago, was shot twice close range in the chest and survived. the county where i used to serve, their lives were saved. we should be re-authorizing this program. i look forward working with you on that. last question if i could, in the same vein. the victims of child abuse act and the child advocacy centers that it funds, i think are an enormous resource for law enforcement and prevent the revictimization by children who were traumatized to be interviewed once. it has all the relevant folks there and present. the one i visited, a children's hospital in new cassel county, the resource for our community and our law enforcement
law professor and government contracts law expert who was on the wartime contract commission on iraq and afghanistan wrote a memo describing all the ways in which the federal government can legally cut spending. and service contracts. it's very important especially in the context of the department of defense. in the last 10 years, spending on service contracts in the department of defense have more than doubled. from 72 billion per year to over to a hundred billion per year, just in the last 10 years. during that same time, in-house personnel costs have been effectively flat. he estimates that government- wide, 70%, to 90% of all sequestration spending cuts could easily come from service contracts. not exercising options, terminating for convenience, negotiating with the contractors not to continue with every option in their contracts. so it's not true that once a contract -- once money has been obligated to a contract that it is required to be spent. it's only when the work has already been done. host: i assume that the argument you are making to the administration. he would like to
. it will not be happening for at least 30 days because that is a period of time by law that federal employees need to be notified that their subject to furlough. that is casting little bit of a different feel about this. host: here is the baltimore sun -- the social security administration said it might shoulder across-the-board spending cuts without spending habits -- sending any of its full-time employees home. guest: that is a good example of how agencies will determine on a one by one basis of how they will deal with this. you heard the defense department saying that it was a lot that as soon as it was possible, they were going to furlough employes one day each week. that is a 20% pay cut for civilian employees at the defense department. each agency will have autonomy in how they implement these cuts. each agency is going to release their plan on an individual basis. host: what about benefits? guest: this will affect -- will not impact retirement plans or insurance. for employers -- employees that received a match, if you're not putting as much pate, you'll not be contributing as much to your
, the position the states are in as a result of the law being passed eric -- past. having said that, i think there is a lot that people miss with respect to the drivers of healthcare cost. i think part of this reflects the fact that our body politic is reluctant to accept certain realities of the academic literature. finkelstein's research demonstrated that one of the big drivers of healthcare cost inflation was the rapid expansion of federally subsidized insurance in the 1960's to medicare and medicaid. the provision of federally subsidized insurance is a big driver of health service consumption and puts a lot of upward pressure on costs. there of another academic studies. one basically look at the factors throughout countries that drive health inflation. one of the big factors is the rate of growth of government provided health care services. if we are with ourselves, we have to recognize that one of the big drivers of healthcare cost inflation is the extent to which the federal government is subsidizing healthcare through various means. it will be difficult for us to get that under contro
. that was signed into law last december. unless you fund it, they are still hamstrung. if we do a cr for the rest of the year or an omnibus or some kind of funding mechanism that does not give them the appropriations and the authority to move funds from one area to another, it severely impacts them. one of the greatest concerns we have is readiness. i know that we have troops that are being trained to go to the war theater and they are not receiving the same training they did just a year ago because those funds have been cut. if we do not pass that appropriations bill they will be cut further. i was told by the secretary of the army that he is going to have to cut 40% out of his operating maintenance account. this cannot be allowed to happen. >> is it a problem for your efforts that there seems to be a mixed message within your own party, that many people are saying let the cuts go ahead. many of them are saying defense cuts -- we need them. i heard a lot of people saying things that are not in line with what you're saying. >> in congress, there are 437 people. we cannot be experts on everything
international law, a world that is capable of coming together to cooperate, to peacefully coexist and be just, on an equal footing. why is this not possible? here we have the entire will of the world, the political force of a world, and latin america has taken on the historic task of creating a new world, to join together in our diversity and say to the rest of the world, this is the latin america of the liberators. we're standing together. this world must change. commander, a fifth objective that i am going to read, because without this, it would be impossible to ensure the existence of mankind. and this fifth objective, ultimately, is the one that gives consistency to this legacy left to us by commander hugo job best -- hugo chavez. the fifth objective is very straightforward and we say this humbly and with our concern for mankind. commander hugo tshamba says as his fifth historic task, to contribute to the preservation of human life and the salvation and the preservation of the human species. no capitalism or socialism or any one of our religions is going to continue to survive if we are n
the country. these are for laws that will the people protecting our country and protect our national security. while that is occurring, the only work being done on sequester in the white house is being done in the press corps. the senate took up a bill yesterday that actually sets of sequester and replaces it with more spending. the cbo scores the bill as a $7.2 billion increase in spending the cbo scored the senate's homework as failing. the house has passed two bills and they are both on the house armed services committee website and they both replaced sequester with responsible cuts and both system and our national security and reduce overall spending. the president's team on sequester has said it is irresponsible and reckless and wrong and dangerous. we agree. in my community, wright-patterson air force base, 3000 people are facing furloughs my community is listed as number 3 in the nation that will be impacted by sequestration, men and women who get up and go to work every day to protect our national security. the president has broken his promise today to the american people and begins w
. >> the natural gas act of 1938 controls natural gas exports. do you think congress needs to revisit that law? we are going to look at all of these issues in a thoughtful way. it is pretty clear that our statutes have not kept up with the time. the last major energy bill was before the natural gas revolution back in 2007. we ought to have a thorough review. the condition in the energy and national resources committee has always been to focus on the production side. we still will do that. i am also going to do everything i can to put a new focus on consumers. the prices that consumers pay and businesses pay, and let us face it gasoline prices are almost four dollars. for this time of year they are way above the kind of increase we would be seeing. i do not think there is any reasonable explanation for it. tax law clearly favors the speculators. i think it is time we look at the refinery question, which hasn't been looked at. we are going to put a new focus on consumers. >> do you think that this country can have an overall energy policy that is effective for these big questions? >> that is in a ve
. do you think congress needs to revisit that law? >> we're going to look at all the issues in a thoughtful way. it is pretty clear that our statutes have not kept up with the times. the last major energy bill was before the natural gas revolution, essentially back in 2007. i do think we ought to have a thorough review. we ought to be looking at different areas, for example, the tradition in the energy and natural resource committee is to focus on the production side. we still will do that. i'm also going to do everything i can to put a new focus on consumers, the prices that consumers pay. gasoline prices are almost $4. for this time of year, they are way above the increase we should be seeing. there's not a reasonable explanation for it. i'm concerned about tax law. that's is going to be an issue that i look at. i also think it is time to look at the refinery questions, which haven't been looked at. so we're going to put a new focus on consumers. >> at some point building of an energy policy piece by piece, do you think this country can have an overall energy policy debate
will be supportive. it is the deal that i made. our additional cut on top of that, by law, until congress takes the sequester a way, we would have to abide by those additional cuts. there is no reason why we should nhave another crisis like shutting the government down. >> even at the lower levels, even if you -- >> i never want to make myself 100% clear with you guys, but i think it is fair to say that i made the deals for a certain budget, there is no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. it is a deal that the speaker made as well and all of the leadership may. a bill that arrives on my desk reflects that commitment that we previously made. i will sign it because i need to make sure that we keep doing what we need to for the american people. >> can you have them down here and refused to let them leave the room? [laughter] >> jessica, i am not a dictator. i am the president. ultimately, if mitch mcconnell or john boehner say they're going to go, i can't have secret service block the doorway. i understand. i know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that has been floating aro
. the philosophy of the rule, which is adopted in the law, is that institutions that are being supported, defended, encouraged by corporate policy, namely-- encouraged by public policy, namely commercial banks, who do have i think a general consent of some activities and their functioning that is essential to the operation of the economy, if they do have that kind of public support, which certainly now looks much more apparent than you would have thought 10 or 20 years ago. a direct way of reducing financial costs and continuity. it should not be expending their energy and their risks on proprietary trading and doing it for the benefit of the stockholder, perhaps. hopefully, it should not be supported by public policy. that view is, i think, widespread in europe. looking at the same subject, they came up with a somewhat different approach but philosophically it is grounded in the same thing. in principle, it is adopted by the british government. they separate out not just proprietary trading, but all trading. all of their activities you loosely associate, away from the core commercial bank. keep i
people get an education that protect our communities, our law enforcement officials, environmental protection, we're cutting all those things mindlessly in order to protect these corporate tax loopholes. this is crazy. i really believe that outside of this little bubble here in washington there is a bipartisan consensus that what we're doing here is crazy. this doesn't make any sense. this does not make any sense. mindless, senseless, across-the-board cuts. no urgency. we are going to go home today. there's a little snow on the ground. we can't really go anywhere until it reopens. we ought to stay here and find out an alternative sequestration. mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, this is not a perfect bill. this is a disgraceful bill. and this process is not on the level. . yesterday wall street celebrated its highest close in history. today it's going higher. and you know what a few years ago they came h
starts january. but there are look-back procedures in the law that are affecting the way the employers hire their staff today. there are a lot of effects of obamacare that we are starting to see and the house, i expect, will have extensive oversight hearings on the devastating impact of this law and the american people. >> [inaudible] >> we'll look at them when we get there. >> will that go into the budget? >> i don't know that. last one. >> have you worked out a schedule when it comes to conference? >> i'm not -- the president talked about coming up and having a conversation with our members. i'm not sure when that conversation will be. as you know, he is getting ready to empark on a trip to the middle east and that's one of the issues he'll want to cover. but i'm sure the issue of sequestration will come up as well. we are going to welcome the president to come up and talk to our members and i'm looking forward to it. >> wednesday morning? >> when we are ready to announce it, you'll know. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national capti
even through traina, -- katrina. there is a book about the oranges of -- origins of dhs. it is for law students. after katrina they say that you did your own internal review of possible organizational structure. you did not call for basic change, but for the integration of a unified command. was there a possibility that fema would have been changed, gotten rid of? >> there was a. of time early in the department where there was a lot of resistance on fema becoming part of the department. i believed it more after katrina them before that the answer was closer integration rather than separation. if you think about the capabilities you want in an emergency, fema does not have a lot of operational personnel. you want to integrate and deploy your customers, your tso, or other agents. some of the airframes and other equipment and bring that to support what is going on. the key here is planning. i used to get asked over and over, who is in charge ? the secretary of dhs would order all the elements of government to move around. that is not civilian eminence. in the united -- governance. unity o
this month by the cbo indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from seven percent of gdp last year to two and a half percent in 2015. the federal head by the public, including that held by the federal reserve, is projected to remain roughly 75% of gdp through much of the current decade. however, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in the near-term budget she says -- budget changes. the cbo estimates that a deficit reduction policy will slow the pace of real gdp growth by about 1.5 or signage points this year. -- 1.5 percentage points this year. the sequestration will and she viewed two 6/10 of a percentage point on the economic drag this year. this additional near-term burden on the recovery is significant. moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and income skies lower recovery would lead less actual deficit reduction in the short run. at the same time, despite progress in reducing near-term budget deficits, the difficult process of determining longer problems has only begun. the cbo projects that the
. offshore, our major cutter fleet along with law enforcement detachments on the united states navy and allied war ships are on patrol ready to respond to threats. coast guard aviation support the fleet providing response which optimize our overall effectiveness. last year we removed over 163 metric tons of illegal drugs before they reached our streets. last summer i testified before you on the role that the role our partners play in protecting our maritime borders closer to home. these partnerships enhance our effectiveness along our coast and waterways and outstanding example of these partnerships is the regional coordinating members of the committee im. in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, san diego and loss-long beach iner difficulted 164,000 pounds of illegal drugs along the southern california coastline. we enjoy very strong partnerships with canada and mexico. through integrated border enforcement, coast guard royal mounted police officers enjoyed success. ship rider allows the u.s. and canadian officers to conduct integrated maritime law enforcement activities. we trained and exer
a big lobby now and are selling them to other countries. selling them to law enforcement agencies within the united states. so it is all about money, really. i think it was a wise political move by senator paul. that's because he will force other republicans who don't necessarily agree with him to take the floor with him. it ended up being a political win. host: in the new york times this morning is this picture of the chairman of the judiciary committee, patrick leahy, with the attorney general william holder -- excuse me, eric holder. the article and attached to the picture says the senators are present eric holder on the use of military force. here's a little of what is he had to say. this was wednesday. [video clip] >> i think what you'll hear from the president in the short amount of time is -- we talked about the need for greater transparency in what we share, about. i'm really confident that if the american people had access to choices and some of this stuff can not be shared, but at least the representatives of the american people, if members of the intelligence committee would h
be more secure. there will need to be some changes and protections in the law in order to facilitate that sort of exchange. >> are there limitations on information sharing between companies? >> sure. absolutely. there are liability laws that limit that. some of the regulations from the regulators limit some of that. again, this is always a balancing act. you do not want companies in the same industry to share so much information that you get into serious antitrust issues. on the other hand, we do not want to let the theoretical be the enemy of the good. there has been a lot in the news lately about attacks coming at major u.s. financial institutions. they need to be able to share that information about those attacks so they can better or tech themselves. making sure it -- better protect themselves. making sure there is no legal concerns facilitating that exchange is part of where we need to go, i think. >> when it comes to cybersecurity, how do you see the role of the federal government in protect in private institutions such as banks, etc.? >> that is an evolving question. on the ar
me how you work with local law enforcement and ranch security. >> recall that community engagement. we recognize even with finite resources and border patrol agents on the border, the border is very broad. the space in which we operate is vast. our ability to work with the state travel law enforcement organizations that have the duty to enforce those laws and the same common goals in protecting those countries -- protecting this country. they have a whole different perspective in terms of things they are seeing. they know what is odd in particular areas. they know what belongs in a particular area. our responsibility is to bring them in as communities of interest and explain to them that is what we are doing, but understand specifically what the threats are as defined by the intelligence community, defined by our perspective in the area, and make them aware of that. this has worked out in separate -- in south texas in particular. we have had great cooperation with the industry because we explained to them that some of the tactics, techniques, and procedures the criminal organizatio
what the work we did and the stories we heard, there were stories about how the laws in lebanon on, for example, would prevent women from obtaining their passport. their employers had taken them away. i was curious about your experiences and the places you have traveled. >> it is diabolical. i am glad congress reauthorize the violence against women act. in that was the trafficking victims' protection act, which helps take away those double standards in american law. too often, we victimize the victims. in terms of internationally, that is why i referenced none of these problems are in isolation. the solutions are holistic. health is the building block of all stability. when a girl is healthy, she can go to school. she can stay in school. when she has her period, what she needs for her hygiene, she can stay in school. for every year a girl stays in school, she has her first child at an older age, and fewer children. her earning capacity skyrockets exponentially. she contributes to her family, her community, and lists the nation out of poverty. when you have laws, because the girls a
. the only ones that would have guns would be the government and of course criminals who ignore gun laws. i call it the mexico model. guns are outlawed in mexico. the citizens cannot possess guns. there is no second amendment. so the government has guns and criminals have guns. some of those criminals have guns thanks in part to the united states government sending 2,000 assault weapons to them in fast and furious. but that's another story. u.s. cities are moving toward the mexico model. chicago and washington, d.c., have laws that make it very difficult for a citizen to exercise the second amendment. these cities make it difficult to even own a firearm, but all three places -- mexico, chicago, washington, d.c. -- all have a reputation of violent, unsafe places. why? because they are. in d.c., if d.c. was so safe, why are government guards everywhere in the city? even here in this capitol building there are armed guards on the roof, at the doors, at the back doors, at the doors over to the east and to the west. it's hypocritical of the gun control crowd in this chamber to say more guns for
american and. i voted against the budget control act because i oppose passing bad law in the foolish hope that they never take effect. when i came to congress in 2001, the budget was $310 billion and the federal government was predicted have a 10-year budget surplus. since then become the pentagon budget has doubled on programs that have all been put on a credit card. for much of the past decade, the brave men in uniform have been fighting in afghanistan and iraq. not one penny of additional revenue was raised by congress to pay for those wars. to fight the is, absolute and total sacrifice was demanded an given for military leaders here today, men and women in your command, all of the families. they have served with honor. the rest of the american people have been asked to sacrifice nothing. they have not contributed anything extra. this congress right now is doing nothing but watching while education, public health, infrastructure, and military readiness are gutted. again, revenue was off the table. even if their results in our nation being less secure. we have an obligation as the congr
be passing the alien and sedition laws. he was very much in favor of the states. at that time, people did not have the same or about suppressing the press that we have today. >> it was in the heat of the moment. rex right. >> stephen from chicago. >> they say history repeats itself. i was wondering if there any presidents and first ladies or first couples that most resemble or are analogous of the adams is -- of the adamses? is that the relationship standard? >> i hope you will take that question. [laughter] >> there was no one else like abigail and john. thet of all, we don't have insight into anybody else's lives. these letters were recently revealed. lyndon johnson's love letters to lady bird were revealed. but there is nothing like the abigail and john exchange. [laughter] >> it is when they are situated in such a important time and there were so many players in so many stages. that is what sets them apart. this is from twitter. >> people came by, but not so much during the presidency. there is a time when john is really quite ancient. and it is some time at your abigail has passed. c
which the president signed into law two years ago this month have already extended the life of the medicare trust fund to at least 2024. going forward the budgettary challenges posed by the medicare program will be largely contingent on the pace of health care costs. now, a balanced approach to addressing our fiscal challenges must also recognize the importance of timing. the recovery is still fragile. weak growth in europe and asia are eliminating our exports. consumption remains constrained as households are still recovering from the loss of $16 trillion of wealth from the financial crieses. -- crisis. we haven't regained all of the $16 trillion that was lost although we've made substantial progress. fiscal policy should remain the focus in supporting the ongoing recovery. at the same time, we should stake steps to address the deficit in a balanced way in the intermediate and long-term. the sequester is poorly timed and badly targeted. before the sequester, i used to say that we faced two risks when it comes to the government budget. on the one hand, we can lower the defic
operator will have to obey all laws protecting an individual's right to privacy. to bring this to fruition, we need to collaborate across the faa in the industry. reauthorization asked us to do this and we have made great strides. we have worked with our labor unions to lay the foundation for nexgen with the modernization and the collaboration has been exceptional. we are now using this new computer system to guide airplanes at high altitudes and nearly half of our sites across the nation. chairman, as you know, a lot of the research that propels nexgen takes place in atlantic city. he plays a key role, and we appreciate your support. we are collaborating with industry and as a result of the work we are doing with many partners we are producing procedures much more quickly and we are using these procedures right now to reduce the miles an aircraft must apply to create more direct routes, reduce fuel burn and cut greenhouse gas emissions. right here in metro washington, we have used these procedures to fly into dulles and reagan national, and we estimate they will save $2.3 million in fuel
was on this committee, and by the way, in the code of laws which i suppose it will be necessary for you to make, i desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and faithful to them than your ancestors, which is an old remarkable statement for a woman to have made in that era. "." >> based on the relationship that we see detailed in the led of letters, would vit been a surprising thing for her to say? >> no, i don't think so at all. as we go back to the kit chen table, i am sure that before he rode off to philadelphia, she filled his ear with a lot of ideas along the way. but john and his response notes that there are several groups of people servant, slaves, et cetera, are also moved during this time to think about their rights and their independence. >> what was her viewpoint on slavery? >> she was opposed to slavery. she had a servant, a black servant who, in fact, had ban slave of her father, and i think she woman had, a was the story. >> phoebe, did she have the right to be free after or continue as servant? i cannot remember. >> abigail cared for her for the rest of her life. >>
be treated equal under the law, and it was a bad initiative, and we hope of the supreme court will uphold the rulings -- it was partly an educational process. we discover as we go along, first of all, there is not one person in this audience or anywhere that does not have a gay person in their family or a gay friend or a gay person that they work with in the workplace. nobody. the normalizing of things, the being able to teach, to being able to show people that everybody is equal, that nobody is different -- if they are doing their job, to not be thought of as different. that is one of the reasons we took on proposition 8. that is one of the reasons we did the play "8," a dramatization of went on in the courtroom in san francisco. we put that on because we want to show people what actually went on in that courtroom. we wanted to normalize it. we find that as we move along, the wind is at our back. it is like we are hitting critical mass. you're seeing more states adopt it. great britain, you're seeing more countries. it will happen. it is supposed to happen. i have said this many times th
, but we now recognize the shortfalls. one primary concern is how the law defines "good teachers it peaked and no child of behind's rigorous -- good teachers." nclb changed the rigorous standards. it sounds great in theory, but it meant schools were forced to value and educators credentials over their ability to effectively and successfully teach children. we all want qualified teachers in the classroom, but we must recognize that it cannot recognize simply by degrees and diplomas alone. recognizing antiquated teaching requirements alone are not helping them on this track in bringing promising teachers to the classroom. some have been working on better alternatives. a growing number of states and school districts have started developing new teacher evaluation systems to incorporate student performance data. not only does this data help measure but a teacher success, and also provides educators with the buyout -- the back to analyze and revised methods. i am pleased to welcome one of my fellow hoosier educators and talk about the importance of teacher valuation at the local level. tennessee
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 72 (some duplicates have been removed)